LexKRISHNA BALLABH SAHAY AND ORS. versus COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
A
, KRISHNA BALLABH SAHAY AND ORS.
v.
COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY & ORS.
July 18, 1968
(M. HlDAYATULLAH, C.J.,
J. C. SHAH,
V. RAMASWAMI,
B
V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Constitution of India, Arts. !53, 156(3), 16{}-Governor--Continu-
ance aJ-ter term over-Validity.
·Commission of Inquiry Act (60 of 1952)-Enquiry by
succeeding
Ministry into conduct of outgoing Ministers-Powers of.
Persons in opposition when the Congress Party was in power in the
Bihar State formed the Government on the voting out of office of the
Congress Ministry.
As soon as the succeeding ministry took over, the
Governor announced institution of an inquiry into the conduct of the
appellants who were ministers in the Congress MinistrY, and a notification
orde'ring the enquiry was issued.
The notification was issued by
the
Governor, after 5 years of his entering upon the office.
The appellants
unsuccessfully filed a writ petition in the High Court. In appeal to this
Court, the appellants contended that (i) the Governor's term having
come to- an end under the Constitution, he was junctus officio and could
not order the inquiry : (ii) power could not be exercised by the sncceed.-
ing Ministry to institute inquiry into th·e conduct of the Ministry that
goes out and (iii) the inquiry was the result of malice and
political
vendetta and the grounds were false and scurrilous.
HELD : The appeal must fail.
(i) The proviso to Art, 156(3) contemplates that the Governor is
to continue to hold office 'notwithstanding the expi'ration of his term'.
The effect of these words is to exclude all questions of the legality of the
holding of office by a Governor after the expiry of his term. There
must always be a Governor under Art. 153 and the interregnum is avoided
by the proviso.
There will immediately be an inter'rcgnum, if after the
term is over, the. Governor designate declines the office.
No doubt the
provisions of Art 160 may be resorted to but even that may not be
sufficient to prevent an interregnum.
Therefore, a pe'rson once appointed
a Governor continues to hold that o:ffic~ till his successor enters upon his
office. The successor may be appointed under Art. 155 or an order may
be made under A'rt. 160. There may be cases in which neglect to appoint
a Governor soon may lead to an inferenee of failure to act under the
Constitution and it may require further examination as to the remedy in
such cases. [392 D-H]
(ii) When a Ministry goes out of office, its successor may consider
any glaring charges and m,ay, if justified, order an inquiry. Otherwise,
each Ministry will become a law into itself and the corrupt conduct of
its Ministers will remain beyond scrutiny. [393 C]
S!iri P. V. Jagannath Rao v. State of Orissa, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 789
followed.
(iii) Without saying anything as to their merits, the charges were
specific, and details and particulars of each cha1rgc. had been stated. The
charges were such that an enquiry could be ordered.
Whether they are
true or false is another matter which ought to be gone into by the Com-
m1ssioll.
Public life of persons. in authority must never admit of such
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1969] l S.C.R.
charges being even framed against them. If they can be made then an
cnqwry whether to establish them or to clear the name of the person
charged is called for. [393 H-394 CJ
Whether the action was ma/afide or not could only be decided if it
could be held that the allegations were false. The Coun was not enquiring
into the charges. [394 E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal )'.;o, 150 of
1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 4, 1968 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 702
of 1967.
A. K. Sen, K. K. Jain, Bishambar Lal, H.
K.
Puri, C. B.
A
B
Belwariar, Basudev Prasad, Bat Bhadra Prasad Singh,
for
the
C
appellants.
M. K. Nambiar, R. K. Garg, S. C. Aganm/. Band11a1/1 Pra-
sad and Anil Kumar, for respondent No. 2.
J. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for respondents Nos. 3 to
6.
D
D. N. Mukherjee, for respondents Nos. 7 and 8.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Aganval, Anil Kumar Gupta and B. S.
Khoji for respondent No. 9.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J. This appeal is brought against an order of
the High Court at Patna, November 4, 1967, dismissing a petition
under ArK 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
By that petition
the appellants sought a declaration that Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.